The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1887-11-08
AWAITING THE DECISION.
Grounds on Which the Supreme Court Is
A sked to Lpsat state Prohibition LAWS.

| Grounds on Which the Supreme Court IL
Asked to Upset State Prohibition Laws.
| WASHINGTON, November 6.-Now that the
anarchist case has been disposed of by the SUI
prerne court, the cases ofgreatest interest upon
which its decision is awaited at present are
the Bell telephone case and the prohibition
cases from Kansas and Iowa. Those who hope
to see the supreme court decide against the
prohibition statutes, manifest singular con-
hdence IN n satisfactory outcome, A
gentleman, who is well informed re-
garding the cases which have been submit
ted to the court, gives an interesting explana-
ton OF the reasons for this confidence of the
nti-prohibitonsts. 1t appears they believe
the supreme court has already given evidence
in decision rendered last year, that at least
half of its members are ready to sustain the
point made against the constitutionality of the
Kansas and iowa statutes. In the case of
Schmidt against Cobb reported in volume 49,
page 206, OF the supreme court reports, precise
~ the same principle presented in the pending
Kansas cases were before the supreme court.
The case came up from the United States
circuit court for the northern district of
Iowa, the question before the supreme court
being whether or not the circuit had erred in
refusing to remove the original case begun
IN the Iowa state courts, to the United States
court. Schmidt was a retail liquor seller
proceeded against under the Iowa statute,
and he sought to remove his case to the
United States court under the fourteenth
amendment, on the ground that he was about
to be deprived of his property without due pro-
cess OF law. The court after full hearing of
the case, however, remanded 1t to the
state courts upon the ground that there was no
federal question involved. Schmidt then took
his appeal to the supreme court, and after
fulFhcarng the court affirmed the decree
below, bya divided bench.
The -prohibtionists construe this action
OF the supreme court-although the case of
Schmidt VS.. Cobb was not heard upon its mer-
its-as indicating that four members of the
Trf hpfin lou t,4,,
tional in destroying the business of a retail
liquor seller, without providing q means of
compensating him for the damage suffered
They think the principle presented in two of
the cases since then-brought up from Kan
sas and submitted TO the supreme court before
the close of its last term-present the same
principle so much more strongly that fayora-
bic decision this time is certain.
The situation is this: The Schmidt case was
heard in Iowa by Judge Brewer, upon the ap-
plication for removal, and renai1ded to the
state court upon the ground that retail liquor
seller does business only by the license of
the state, and that such license can unques-
tionably be revoked at will. Later, the case
of Herman Ziebold and Joseph Hagelin Kan
sas brewers came before Judge Brewer, upon
a similar application for removal from the
Kansas state courts. Upon hearing of the
application the removal was ordered a plea in
abatement made by the state, that no federal
question was presented, being overruled.
Judge Brewer then tried the case upon its
merits, the state having renewed its prayer
to have the brewery shut up as nuisance,
and, after full hearing dismissed the states
bill. An appeal was then taken on the part of
the state to the supreme court of the United
States.
In his decision upor the Ziebold and Hage-
lin case Judge Brewer, following the line of
his reasoning in the Iowa case, decided that
while the state could prevent the sale of liq-
nor, which was a mere privilege granted by
license, ii could not similarly put a stop to the
manufacture of liquor which was carried ON
as matter Of right; or, at least, could not do
so, without providing proper compensation for
the damage suffered. Tho anti-prohibi-
tionists now say that even if the
supreme court should divide again, as it
did before, they will secure a victory this time
as n divided court would again affirm the de-
csion of Judge Brewer, which was, in this
case, against the state statute. They are
hopeful, however, t]lat some of the judges who
could not hold the destruction of q liquor
sellers business q violation OF article H. viii
take different view as to the destruction of
liquor manufacturers business. In other
words they rest all their hopes on the dstinc-
ton between the one doing business and the
other by right.